[kfay]

Scoring: IMP

Partner opens 1NT.

Gameplan?

---

[karlson]

I'll go 2d...4h. If partner has some normal balanced hand, we still need a lot of cards to make slam. Hopefully partner will be able to bid on if he has a trick source, or a useful black suit doubleton.

[brianshark]

Transfer to hearts and then ask for keycards, and then ask for kings if necessary.

[pclayton]

This is a moose, even with the dubious ♦K.

There are a few methods I know of to handle hands like this:

1. Direct 3♥ as a slam try, but this is seldom played.

2. Transfer and then re-transfer via 3♦. Hopefully this gets us into a cue bidding sequence.

Not playing any of this, I have to make the serious underbid of 2♦...4♥, or improvise. I would rather improvise with 3♣.

[kenrexford]

I like the method of transfer then three of the other major. Here, 1NT-2♦-2♥(presumably -- otherwise no problems)-3♠.

Lacking that, I need a minimum primed out to have 50%+. ♠A, ♥K, ♦A, and ♣A gives us a 50% shot (clubs coming in), technically a smidge better if some squeeze or throw-in is available. Actually, maybe worse because I also need hearts coming in. Whatever.

A simple transfer...4♥ works if partner is aggressive; otherwise transfer...5♥ works.

I want methods, though. A lack of methods for handling big 6-carders is problematic, IMO.

[karlson]

I think my second choice is to texas and cue 4s (unless you play this as exclusion, but i thought jacoby then 4s was standard as exclusion, at least I play it that way). Surprised no one mentioned this possibility.

[ArtK78]

Either transfer to 4♥ followed by a cue of 4♠ or a transfer to 4♥ followed by RKCB. I play the meaning of 4♠ and 4NT are reversed, since 4♠ is kickback, so 4NT is a spade cue.

This hand is too good for a two level transfer followed by 4♥.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Jun 10 2008, 04:54 PM, said:

I want methods, though. A lack of methods for handling big 6-carders is problematic, IMO.

Me too.

[kenrexford]

karlson, on Jun 10 2008, 10:57 AM, said:

I think my second choice is to texas and cue 4s (unless you play this as exclusion, but i thought jacoby then 4s was standard as exclusion, at least I play it that way). Surprised no one mentioned this possibility.

Why would Jacoby...4♠ be a cue but Texas...4♠ be exclusion? That seems backwards to me. That said, either...4♠ as a cue seems odd. Having an asking bid in there might make sense, but a cue?

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Jun 10 2008, 05:55 PM, said:

Why would Jacoby...4♠ be a cue but Texas...4♠ be exclusion?  That seems backwards to me.

I think it's the correct way around. In the Jacoby sequence responder has extra information from opener's failure to break the transfer. This is more useful when responder plans a cooperative auction than where he plans to ask for keycards. Also, the exclusion sequence is rarer, again arguing for using the more informative sequence to be the cue bid.

Did I mention that I think it daft to play methods where responder can't initiate a cue-bidding sequence below 4♠?

[kfay]

I never put a damper on any methods in this thread.

[mikeh]

My initial reaction was to jacoby and then bid game, showing a slam invitation. However, a 50 deal simulation revealed that this approach was too conservative: slam is on about 76% of the time, and the invite missed 16 of 38 slam deals. The invite got us too high only twice.. and this means that we are failing in about 8% of the slams... so missing almost 40% and overbidding only 8% seems too conservative to me.

I have not discussed Justin's sequence of transfer then 5♥ with any partner. I suspect that, at the table, I would take it as 'bid slam unless you have a reason not to', while the invite says 'bid slam if you have a reason to do so', and the former more closely matches the simulation... especially since there is little 5-level danger.. not 'no' danger, but the simulations did not reveal any hand where the 5 level was too high.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Jun 10 2008, 03:41 PM, said:

My initial reaction was to jacoby and then bid game, showing a slam invitation. However, a 50 deal simulation revealed that this approach was too conservative: slam is on about 76% of the time, and the invite missed 16 of 38 slam deals. The invite got us too high only twice.. and this means that we are failing in about 8% of the slams... so missing almost 40% and overbidding only 8% seems too conservative to me.

I have not discussed Justin's sequence of transfer then 5♥ with any partner. I suspect that, at the table, I would take it as 'bid slam unless you have a reason not to', while the invite says 'bid slam if you have a reason to do so', and the former more closely matches the simulation... especially since there is little 5-level danger.. not 'no' danger, but the simulations did not reveal any hand where the 5 level was too high.

Just curious. What portion of the 76% that made were freaks and what percentage of the 24% that did not were good slams nonetheless?

My guess is that the percentage of slams that were good slams is slightly higher even than 76% because more good slams failed for some reason than bad slams accidentally came in.

[cherdano]

What's up with these slam suggestions when we can have at most 32 hcp?

[inquiry]

cherdano, on Jun 10 2008, 06:05 PM, said:

What's up with these slam suggestions when we can have at most 32 hcp?

Perhaps because people count something more than high card points? North has a well rounded 34 ZAR points with a certain 8 card fit. If you have a nine=card fit, you can add "misfit" points.

Partners 1NT opener (playing 15-17 hcp) most frequently has 32 or 33 Zar points (range is from 28 to 37 in a sample of 50 random 1NT openers with 15-17 hcp I examined)

Your 34 + partners "typical" result of 32 or 33 ZAR points puts you at 67 ZARS. Now, if partner has 3+♥'s, you get to add "misfit" points, which will surely be at least one (he needs at least 2♦), and if he has only 2♦, he will be something like 4-3-2-4 giving you 3 "misfit" points, sending you on.

Thus, even without counting anything.... you are in "grand slam zone" if parnter has two card fit (67 to 68 Zars) and even better off if he has 3+ fit (70 to 73 Zars). Now a couple of issues.

• partner does not have to have 32 or 33 Zars, i found hands as low as 28 zars
  
• Even with a lot of ZARs you can be off two quick tricks

A 1NT like.... ♠KJx ♥KJx ♦xxx ♣AKx is only 28 ZAR opener (plus your 34 plus 3 misfit points since he has 3 hearts) is a total of 65 ZARS. The slam depends upon a spade finessee (even with your totally wasted diamond king). Change it to
♠Kxx ♥KJx ♦Jxx ♣AKx and it has very little play (someone with 5♠ and the ♦Q or a doubleton ♦Q.

So even pretty weak ZAR point hands for 1NT opening, if holding 3 card heart suit, there is a great chance for slam. I think Justins 1NT-2♦-2♥-5♥ probably conveys this info as well as anything, the only thing it does is misses out on keycard asking (see item 2 above).

[Echognome]

inquiry, on Jun 10 2008, 03:48 PM, said:

cherdano, on Jun 10 2008, 06:05 PM, said:

What's up with these slam suggestions when we can have at most 32 hcp?

<Ben's rebuttal>

I'm pretty sure Arend was being sarcastic.

[matmat]

Echognome, on Jun 10 2008, 06:49 PM, said:

inquiry, on Jun 10 2008, 03:48 PM, said:

cherdano, on Jun 10 2008, 06:05 PM, said:

What's up with these slam suggestions when we can have at most 32 hcp?

<Ben's rebuttal>

I'm pretty sure Arend was being sarcastic.

Is that possible? isn't he German?!

[gwnn]

cherdano, on Jun 11 2008, 01:05 AM, said:

What's up with these slam suggestions when we can have at most 32 hcp?

I think they're catering to the possibility that partner downgraded their mediocre 18 count. That seems to be very popular in the ranks of US experts.